Ive recently fallen across an article from the Railroad Gazette, 1907, which describes the Santa Fe fitting 18 2-8-0's, followed by 18 2-10-2's with a Neely oil burner arrangement. The text of the article seems to imply that this burner arrangement was gentler to firebox sheets and stays, however, I dont recall having seen any mention to this type of burner arrangement before.

Does anyone have any info, drawings or experience with this arrangement? I cant quite tell if it is set up similarly to a drooling type burner, or if the burner was also a different design.

Info from https://www.steamlocomotive.com/locobase.php?country=USA&wheel=2-10-2&railroad=atsf#11184

"AT&SF 2-10-2 Class 1600 (Locobase 11184)
.... This class was nearly identical to the 900s shown in Locobase 463, but put about a ton more weight on the drivers and were delivered as a mix of oil- and coal-burning locomotives. The oil-burners were 1620-1639 and 1656-1673; the coal-burners--1600-1619, 1646-1655--which pulled tenders filled with 7,000 US gallons (26,495 litres) of water and 14 tons (12.7 metric tons) of coal were the rest. Oil burners used what would be the Santa Fe-developed back-mounted Booth burner--this design was used for years on all Santa Fe oil-burning locomotives.

A copy of an 18 January 1904 letter from the Santa Fe's A Lovell to Baldwin preserved in the later spec reported that Lovell had visited and left a sketch showing how he wanted the builder to reinforce the frame. Engine 939 of the previous class had suffered a break and he wanted to forestall a similar occurence in the 1600s.

His annoyance at finding Baldwin's frame card #5068 unchanged can be imagined, particularly as engine 1604 of the present class had broken its right frame in the same places. He now requested that the front frame's top rail be deepened from 5" to 6 1/2" (127 to 165 mm), the bottom member from 4" to 4 1/2" (102 to 115 mm), and the bottom front projection of the main frame from 4 11/16" to 5 7/16" (119 to 138 mm). A handwritten note entered on the copy reported that the bottom member's depth beginning with 1657 was increased to 7 1/4" (164 mm) beginning with 1652. Locobase supposes this significant thickening resulted from Baldwin's identification of the specific weakness in the frame design.

According to the Topeka State Journal of 4 Feb 1907, preserved in the clipping collection offered by Frank Ellington on [] (visited 23 July 2004), "The firebox contains clay balls about 10 inches in diameter. The oil is turned among these and lighted. The clay balls become intensely hot, giving a much more even heat than coal. "

Locobase had not heard of this aid to combustion, and knew no more until he examined the original specs in the DeGolyer volume, which contained the admonition: "Special care taken in drilling tell-tale holes in clay balls so they will be parallel to axis." Walter Bohnstengel later the results of using the "Neely furnace", as this layout was called. The clay balls did indeed "give a desirable flame distribution, but the arrangement was not rigid enough to withstand locomotive service."
...."


Lots more, including cross-section drawings, can be found in The Railroad Gazette, vol. XLII, no. 23, pages 764-767:
https://books.google.com/books?id=-I1MAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA766&lpg=PA766&dq=santa+fe+Neely+oil+burner&source=bl&ots=WCK-QbRSgB&sig=ACfU3U3HoSxrDGM8Cf9JvFZyDWYamGAooQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjw_4uM6deBAxWQlGoFHbjWBfoQ6AF6BAgmEAM#v=onepage&q=santa%20fe%20Neely%20oil%20burner&f=false


- Doug Debs

The earliest volume I have read concerning 'oil fuel in locomotives' dates from the early 1880s, and the approach recommended then is very similar: the grate was covered with broken refractory rock, much as a current gas grill might be, and this was heatedby spraying oil on it and igniting with primary air coming up from below. Once this was hot, it served both as widespread volatilization and then ignition of the sprayed oil and as very effective flameholding at low feed rate.

In the Neely system, the initial volatization takes place in the 'developing chamber' which heats the balls from below, and the combustion plume then apparently passes over the tops of the balls for further 'hot' contact. Note that the burner is in the front, comparatively high up, and that the text notes that 'collapse' of the balls does not take the engine automatically out of service but reduces it to the kind of capacity seen in 'ordinary' oil firing... be interesting to see how much of that was observed in ordinary practice.

.

Very interesting thread.
Has anyone found any patents on this system? I tried a search, but no luck. Tried many different key words. Perhaps the system was patented under another inventor's or owner's name. There were a couple of Neelys involved in steam technology back then, although not railway related. Perhaps this furnace system was developed for other service and then adapted to locos?
With the two lower dampers and a fairly large air space under the combustion/developing chamber, would it have taken a fair bit of skill or experience to make this system work without admitting way too much air? How would it have worked under heavy wheel slip conditions, for instance?
It appears the balls could be varied by size, along with the arch spacings. It really looks like something the back shop crews might have hated!